What is a Congregational Church / Congregationalism?

In the Protestant or Reformed Churches, the state serves as a link, as a principle of unity; they are, consequently, national churches. The Romish system has another centre of unity, which I need not stop to notice here. The dissenters, whatever may be additionally the unity of ideas and of habit of association with which analogous principles furnish them, are in general independents or congregationalists; that is to say, their churches, as churches, acknowledge no bond of unity among themselves.

But while we cannot find a full expression of this unity in these broken days, it is altogether another matter to deny it in practice, and the state of things that you describe is clearly a denial of it, and confusion. It all arises from the idea of independent assemblies, that each must act for itself regardless of what may happen elsewhere, and this is the principle of congregationalism, and not of the church of God .

But while we cannot find a full expression of this unity in these broken days, it is altogether another matter to deny it in practice, and the state of things that you describe is clearly a denial of it, and confusion. It all arises from the idea of independent assemblies, that each must act for itself regardless of what may happen elsewhere, and this is the principle of congregationalism, and not of the church of God.

The Question which I desire to consider with you in this letter is that of the church. Perhaps that is the most important subject for believers at the present time, both on account of its intrinsic character, and also on account of the confusion not to say ignorance that prevails on this point in Christendom. A Catholic will of course tell you that the church is the Church of Rome; but many Episcopalians would equally identify it with the Establishment, which is indeed termed the Church of England; Dissenters [2] will tell you that while the church composes all believers of all times, they are yet members of the church meeting at Blackheath Chapel, or, to increase the confusion, at Brownford Congregational Church; whereas Wesleyans will modestly say that they are members of the Society, etc. Now if we do not know what the church is, we cannot know the privileges which attach to our belonging to it; and hence we desire to ask, What Is The Church?

The question which I desire to consider with you in this letter is that of the church. Perhaps this is the most important subject for believers at the present time, both on account of its intrinsic character, and also on account of the confusion — not to say ignorance — that prevails on this point in Christendom. A Catholic will of course tell you that the church is the Church of Rome; but many Episcopalians would equally identify it with the Establishment, which is indeed termed the Church of England; Dissenters will tell you that while the church composes all believers of all times, they are yet members of the church meeting at Blackheath Chapel, or, to increase the confusion, at Brownford Congregational Church; whereas Wesleyans will modestly say that they are members of the Society, etc. Now if we do not know what the church is, we cannot know the privileges which attach to our belonging to it; and hence we desire to ask, What is the church?

In the first place, it is material to notice that the church in the sense, under discussion, of the body of Christ is not found in the Old Testament. This statement is often denied on the ground of a single passage in the Acts of the Apostles, which it is therefore incumbent upon us carefully to examine. In the speech of Stephen, before the Sanhedrim, we find these words: "This is he that was in the church in the wilderness," etc. (Acts 7:38); and on these words the whole question turns, because there is not a single passage in the Old Testament Scriptures themselves which even hints at the existence of the church as known in the New Testament. Now we admit at once that the word "church" is that which is also used of the church of God, it is ekklesia. But what does this word ekklesia mean? It means simply an "assembly," leaving the nature of the assembly to be defined by the context. For example, the same word is applied three times to the tumultuous gathering at Ephesus, which was brought together through the action of Demetrius, the silversmith, and his fellow-tradesmen (Acts 19:32, 39, 41); and here, in each instance, it is translated assembly. What then, we ask, was the assembly in the wilderness? The answer is plain, it was the congregation of Israel. But was this congregation the church of God? Impossible; for while there were men born of God amongst that congregation, the congregation was composed of the nation of Israel after the flesh, so that every child born of the Jews was, by virtue of his birth, a member of it. If therefore it is contended that this was the church of God, the inference which meets us is that the church of God in the wilderness was composed of men after the flesh; for the new birth clearly had nothing whatever to do with forming its members, inasmuch as the whole nation was included. So stated, every instructed Christian will at once perceive that the assembly or congregation of Israel was not, in any sense, the church according to the New Testament Scriptures.

This suffices as to grounds of exclusion, the principle and details of which faith can find in the word of God. Originally all the church owned itself and acted as one. Those who so own and act now are seeking to walk in the unity of the body. For they take their stand for united action on the great truth that "there is one body and one Spirit," seeing also that the Lord has provided a resource even for the present state of His saints scattered by inadequate or false, by loose or narrow, grounds of union. They accept the unity produced by the Spirit who baptizes all Christians into one body; and if they cannot convince all others that this is the divine ground of church unity, they can at least act on it by grace themselves. Hence they seek diligently in the measure of their faith to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, while they would also maintain scriptural discipline among those who gather thus to the Lord's name. This is set aside by the Protestant theory of co-ordinate systems, though by none so distinctly as the Congregationalists; for they go so far as to make each congregation independent of every other on principle, whatever they may concede to courtesy — a fatal abuse of churches to deny the whole principle and practice of the church on earth.

The pendulum may swing to the opposite extreme, away from the high claims of ecclesiastical-assumption. To avoid the evils connected with ecclesiastical assumption, the system of independency may be restored to. In independency, each meeting becomes a self-contained unity, standing on its own basis, independent of any other gathering. The Church as the body of Christ, the house of God, a unity composed of all saints everywhere, outside of all questions of locality, is entirely overlooked or is treated only as an ideal, thus not demanding a practice in accordance therewith. But to adopt an order of things that gives us a number of independent local assemblies, whether closely affiliated or not, so that the largest possible measure of personal freedom is allowed, is to practice something that falls far short of Scripture!

It is argued by many that since local churches are not seen in Scripture as forming a confederation, they must therefore be autonomous and independent. They are not to be formed into a definite circle accountable to some central ecclesiastical governing body at some designated location on earth. There is no such thing in the New Testament as a central oversight of the Churches of God.

An important general principle yet remains. In page 12 of the "Reasons," we find the following: "It is well known that we have always refused to acknowledge that the scripture recognises the whole body of assembled saints, as invested with authority and capacity to examine witnesses and debate their verdict. This the church does, we believe, through those of its members capacitated by God for such service. It is in the sense just defined, that we have always denied that the congregated church is a deliberative assembly. Thus we have always maintained a testimony against the principles of the dissenters. If therefore from the period of our first gathering together in this place until now, we have steadily and invariably acted on this principle, can it be expected that we should depart from it in this matter?" It is evident this is of all importance.

What we have, then, offered to our contemplation, as a just specimen and example of Church fellowship and godly edification, is a company of believers in the Lord Jesus Christ, called by His name, and worshipping the Father in the power of the one Spirit. Such is a genuine Christian Church or assembly.